Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 31

Active discussions
Archive 25 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 35


Imbalanced article, and proposal to fix

A while back, there was a bunch of material on Starcraft units and strategies. Then there was a great purge under the campaign banner of Wikipedia not being a strategy guide - which was badly needed. However, looking around now, it seems the campaign went overboard. The articles on Starcraft and its three races are overloaded with intricate detail on the plots and characters, which are all relevant only to single-player mode, while there is almost no material on even what the basic units are, which is one of the most important aspect of the game, in either single-player or multi-player mode. The absence is especially significant because probably most game play and notability of Starcraft is in its multi-player mode, not its single-player mode. It's as if you had a long article on chess without ever mentioning that the pieces include a king, a queen, knights, rooks, etc. or how those pieces are different.

I propose we fix this just by at least adding a brief list of the units to each of the three race pages, each with a single short sentence briefly describing the nature of the unit. That would only provide the most basic and undisputedly encyclopedic sort of information about the topic of the articles, and would absolutely not threaten to pollute Wikipedia with verboten "strategy guide" material.

As a secondary matter, it would also help if we trimmed away some of the extensive detail on single-player mode plots and characters.

These concerns are probably true of a lot of other games, though Starcraft is the only one that I have paid attention to.

I'm cross-posting this on the talk pages for Starcraft and its three races plus the video game Wikiproject to draw appropriate attention from potentially concerned users. Please continue the discussion, though at the Video Games Wikiproject talk page, for the sake of a single forum. If consensus ends up running parallel to my proposal here over the next couple weeks, I'll add the units.

- Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I was going to clean this up a while ago, and I think the problem of over specifics goes far deeper than a lack units. It felt so overwhelming that nothing ever came of it. Are all of these really needed? Wikipedia is not a place for just plot summaries which is where many of these books fall. Many of the other articles have problems and in need of cleanup (although many have good refs). I don't know how all those players could be notable, but I think most of these articles need cleanup; lots and lots of cleanup and not the cutting room floor. What's the move?--Clyde (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say we do not need lists of units. Summarizing the strategy of the race, for example "The Protoss' units are much more expensive than other races' in the game. They compensate for their cost by their... &c." is better. That said, what the article needs most is:
  • Kill the plot summary. One way to do this, is to have one plot summary for all the Starcraft media, so you only have to put in two paragraphs max and link to the respective page. Either way, the page needs to be trimmed down.
  • Out of universe writing: see WP:WAF
  • Out of universe info- this is the crux. What makes the Protoss notable outside of the game? See Master Chief (Halo) for an example of what I've been trying to do- add real-world commentary and criticism, as well as adding info on the development of the character(s).
David Fuchs (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think a paragraph, instead of a list, would be more appropriate, as you can explain more succinctly and in less space what the units are within the gameplay section. Also, putting a reference in that new paragraph would be great, since this is a featured article and all material should be sourced. Further, I agree that it should be trimmed a little, go for it. Judgesurreal777 21:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC) [The preceding comment was moved here from Talk:StarCraft#Imbalanced_article.2C_and_proposal_to_fix, for the sake of keeping the discussion in one place - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 21:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)]

The StarCraft articles should have a healthy balance of gameplay and story. Saying that StarCraft's success is soley to multiplayer and therefore is the only part that should be really focused on it naive, and most of the reviews I've been reading recently (which has been quite substantial due to attempting to find sources on reception) put as much to the SP mode as the MP side.

Clawed One and I have been working to clear up some of the articles. However it's a slow process, and so far we've merged most of the characters into a single out-of-universe article with the assistance of Deckiller. That article is classified as an A-class good article, so only minor tweaks are needed to help it on its way to a FAC (which probably shouldn't be attempted until after SC2's release due to the information that will make itself available after the game's release). Characters with more extensive information available, Jim Raynor and Sarah Kerrigan, have their own articles and are nicely moving along as more real-world information presents itself - these articles have all been assessed by WP:VG and recommendations have been made. We are also working on other aspects of the game, a rewrite of the the species pages is on the table, which will include development information, physiology (and design of), gameplay aspects, faction details and reception. Any plot summaries in the species articles will be limited to short and relevant sections of the factions, whilst gameplay aspects (including MP features) will go in the gameplay section. A list of units is completely unnecessary under any conditions, except in an external link to a page with the list.

We are also working on a locations article, which not only will merge all the old in-universe planet articles but will also talk more indepth about development and design of maps for the game and the reception of the locations and maps of the game - like the characters article, a healthy balance. The books and authorised expansions are also on the to-do list, but these are quite a while away. -- Sabre 22:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sabre's efforts are the way to go here. User:Krator (t c) 17:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, notice that Protoss has recently been AfD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protoss - though without corresponding AfDs for the other races (with similarly written articles) — I suggest the discussion here precludes the need for a parallel AfD debate. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 22:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Quite honestly, they can do what they like there. The complete rewrite would effectively delete the current version anyway. Plus it makes moving a new version out once its done easier if the original page no longer exists. -- Sabre 12:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not going to bother trying to add sources into the current version. Let them delete it, and we'll work on it in the meantime. David Fuchs (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, shoot. I should have read this first – the existing articles (and note that Zerg is on AfD now too, but somehow Terrans isn't!) are unsalvageably bad. I'll just note now that I think these articles should primarily have a MP-centric focus. The major debate is over notability, and while one can make various arguments relating to SC single player, its notability is mostly as a competitive multiplayer game, and the article should address things accordingly. taion 20:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks like Protoss has closed as no consensus- so I guess this is our time to start cleaning it up? David Fuchs (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it'll really be possible to rewrite the article as something well-referenced without using Korean sources, so perhaps this would be a good first step. I suspect that the article will need to be rewritten with a significantly heavier multiplayer/competitive focus. Perhaps condensing the storyline information would also be a good place to start, as it requires finding no additional references beyond what is already present. taion 00:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with all comments just above by taion. For future reference, overlapping AfDs for Protoss and Zerg resulted in Keep for Zerg, and No Consensus for Protoss, with a conclusion that Korean sources are needed and a recommendation to seek help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protoss
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zerg
- Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 09:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's best?

Look at 3D Monster Maze. I highly doubt that this would make even GA now. FAR anyone? Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it hasn't degraded significantly since getting the star, see comparison here. It's just that wikipedia's criteria for achieving FA status has moved the bar a little higher I believe. --Oscarthecat 21:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
So would you recommend FAR then? Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The standard for FA's has gone up substantially, so it's probably a good idea to request a FAR, yes. I think it's pretty clear the article will be demoted. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-31 23:22
Okay. I'll nominate it later. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon merger, still

The merger discussion is still happening but I don't know if it's going anywhere. It's pretty much about individual notability vs. redundancy and separation of info. I'd love if some fresh voices could chime in. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Many game articles use flags, usually  ,   and   in the release date part of the infobox. I just noticed someone removing these with the edit summary Removed flag icons to comply with WP:VG standards. So are flags officially not allowed? Personally, I find such a visual representation of the regions more instantly and easily recognizable, and especially when there are lots of instances, such as on Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, comparisons of the various dates given are much easier to make with flags than would be the case with a non-visual representation. If that makes any sense. Miremare 16:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A glance at the talk archives shows that this was discussed here and here. There was consensus at the time not to use flags. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-3 16:46
The current guidelines recommend using {{vgrelease}}. It's elegant and is clearer in the infobox code (see [1] for instance). Kariteh 17:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe it also avoids issues of "which flag do you use to represent a region-wide release?" --Masem 17:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That's only a problem with Canada though isn't it? And are all games released in the US and Canada simultaneously anyway? Miremare 17:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the European Union flag doesn't really represent the whole Europe. --Mika1h 17:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
And the additional problem of World wide releases. The UN "World" flag was erroneously being used to represent the whole world as well. In my opinion the flags looks messy and get confusing very quickly once you go beyond people general knowledge of flags at least with three letters you've got a hint towards working out the country without having to mouse over it. - X201 18:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
No, but we have flags for the individual countries where appropriate too. Miremare 17:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll second the recommendation for {{vgrelease}}. Anomie 18:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that the usage of flags on Marvel: Ultimate Alliance looks horrible. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-3 18:01
Seconded. Compared with something like GTA:SA it's no contest in my book. - X201 18:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
To me, the GTA:SA version looks just a mess of letters (especially with the system names in there too), whereas the flags are instantly recognisable. Miremare 18:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I find the GTA:SA article fine. It would look much more confusing if flags were used, because you would have to put two flags each time on one line for the North American date, and there's still the problem of the European flag. Also, for information, the US and Canada don't always have the same date (see Vagrant Story and Legend of Mana for instance). The European flag is a problem as said above because it doesn't represent the whole Europe, and because the "European" release date often doesn't concern just Europe but also Australasia (PAL region). In many articles, it would mean using more than 3 flags on one line for the PAL (Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and tons of others). Moreover, ---(insert tons of other arguments here)... Eh, I'm in the middle of writing my post and I've just realized I don't need to write all this. I'll just quote one of Anetode's argument in the archived discussion:
"Visual representations are inaccessible to visually impaired users who depend on screen reading software."
This argument is impossible to counter. Flags should not be used because of this sentence, that's all. Kariteh 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Good point Kariteh. This seems to be a clincher. I'll stick to using the letters in future, and avoid the flags altogether, thanks for raising this point. --Oscarthecat 22:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Another point against use of flags in the Infobox is the wording of the proposed policy guideline over at WP:FLAGS (their bold, not mine) "Repeated use of a flag in a table or infobox (usually to save space and avoid repeating the country name) should only be done if the flag has been used previously in the table or infobox with both the flag and the country name." Having the full country name in an Infobox will lead to a very messy Infobox. - X201 21:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, how does "EUR" and "NA" help those with screen reading software? Certainly "NA" to me stands for "not applicable" or "not available", which could be a bit confusing in the context of a release date. We would need to spell out the region names in full if screen reading software were the issue. I don't have any particular attachment to the flags themselves (to the best of my recollection I've never even used them) but the current {{vgrelease}} way of doing it doesn't seem ideal. Miremare 22:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
(outdent)Or an non-graphical browser like mobile phones and "optimized" dial-up. In general, hover-text (or whatever it's called) should be used to mean what the picture does, so instead of the text saying "Flag of Japan" it should say "Japan release" or something. Like the Wikipedia logo in the top left, instead of the hover-text saying "Wikipedia logo", it says "Visit the main page [alt-shift-z]". This is optimized for non-graphical browsers.
About the whole North America thing, wasn't there a country called "Mexico" at some point? I doubt every (or even most) NA release date in Wikipedia includes US, Canada and Mexico. And I doubt that EUR releases include every country (or even most) in Europe. This lessens the importance of countries like Mexico. And don't they ever have games in South Africa or Brasil? I never see it. Country-specific would be the best way to go, but it would likely be a huge pain to get all of them. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I've never liked the EUR or NA things myself but they are infinitely more palatable than than the combined USA/Canada flag that was incorrectly used to represent North America. The Country by country way is the correct way to go and given that some flags look identical to one another at icon size and that some flags just are unrecognisable unless you mouse over them then the ISO country code would seem the sensible choice, not perfect but as I said above, the three letters give you more of a hint at the country name than a red stripe on top of a blue stripe with a shield in the centre of it. Country by country would need some common sense, perhaps only major markets, or markets where the game sold well with other countries in the article body if needed. - X201 07:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a some grey area with the term "North America" because some definitions of it don't include Mexico (which is then part of Central America instead). This grey area is much more acceptable than using a US flag and ignoring Canada. Besides, this is a non-issue: who ever said that a game released in a region has to be released everywhere in that region? European release means that the game was released "in Europe", not necessarily "everywhere in Europe". If it's released in two different European countries at the same date, then it's perfectly correct to talk about a European release date, and the two countries and why it was only them can always be explained in the article's body if necessary. The same applies to "North America" (the US and Canada are part of NA), while the same does not apply to "USA" (Canada is not part of the US).
As for countries such as South Africa and Brazil, firstly, yes there are games that are released there; see for instance Outlive. Secondly, using the same logic I used previously, a "PAL" release means the game has been released at least in some PAL countries; it doesn't necessarily mean that the game was released in every country using the PAL system (although the South African probably import European games since they're compatible).
Overall, using letters is thus more correct and more versatile than using flags, because you can use letters to refer to both regions and countries, whereas you can use flags only for countries and not regions, thus leading to potential issues of multiple flags being used for one date. Kariteh 08:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Video games/Archive 31
This (on the right) is what I'd like to see, though I'm sure it's not to everyone's taste. A country-specific system (with full names for clarity) listing the countries most relevant to an English speaking audience. This is also to get around the "North America" and "Europe" problem (especially Europe), though of course these terms could still be used if a simultaneous region-wide release did occur. I don't really agree with the argument that using "Europe" is technically correct if it's release somewhere in Europe; if a game was released only in Luxembourg and Andorra, "Europe" might be technically correct, but it still implies a Europe-wide release. Miremare 17:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(←)One additional consideration is that for the most part, most new VGs are released as DVDs are: locked to specific regions via hardware; its not as hardlined as DVD region encoding, but the same concept is there. I think because of this, it seems better to mark for the purposes of the infobox the releases specific to region, and then if necessary discrepancies are to be addressed, they can be added within the text of the article. Of course, there are exceptions: if only a single country in the region gets the game, then that country should be noted instead of the region. I'm not 100% sure this is the "right" way, but it does seem like a logically consistent approach. Also, Miremare's idea above could be modified a bit by altering what the {{vgrelease}} template spits out; by using CSS, one could have the full country name if they desired or just the 2 or 3 letter abbreviation (and even possibly the flags if "region acceptable" flags are determined, though this would not be default).--Masem 18:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Masem set me thinking about a minor side issue, in that a lot of people think that Valve's Steam distibution system is a global release system which it is not. It also has certain titles available only in certain countries (see here ) and so it - and GameTap et al - may need some form of regional indication from time to time too. - X201 21:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess my example with two European countries wasn't the best example. My point was that "Europe" is a general term which doesn't have to equal "Every country in Europe". If for some reason Luxembourg and Andorra are the only countries in Europe to get the game, then listing them on one line (if it's simultaneous) or two (if there are two dates) is perfectly fine. However, if the major countries of Europe get the game, it's not necessary to list each of them; using the term Europe is fine; after all that's what the companies do, and if there's something very special to note, then it should be noted in the article, not the infobox. If for some reason there's only one or two particular European countries that didn't get the game while the others did, then there's most probably something interesting to say about it and this has to be explained in the article's body too (like if Germany banned the game because of some Nazi references, etc); in this case, using the term Europe in the infobox is also perfectly fine as long as there's a footnote or a "See (#section)" wikilink that gives more details.
So basically, I think that using flags, or textual country names exclusively, is cumbersome because it requires too much redundancy (like listing the same date twice or more) and too much details (details that shouldn't belong in the infobox but in the article, if they're so important); on the contrary, using textual names which can be either regions or countries is more versatile, because the level of precision that they involve is good enough for the infobox's purpose without sacrificing factuality.
Now as for the abbreviation issue, I believe that full names would be clearer than both flags and text abbreviations. However, I think the font used in the example on the right is too small. Perhaps we could give more horizontal space for the release dates by giving them the whole width of the infobox, like in this sandbox example? Kariteh 22:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Kariteh, I would pretty much agree with all of that. Regarding the sandbox example, that's good, though I'd prefer the country/region names in bold to make them a bit more obvious. However one point I would make is that, were individual countries to be used, listing every one would never be necessary. This is English Wikipedia after all, and we're probably not ever going to need to specify when games were released in non-English speaking countries which are not either major markets (like Japan) or directly relevant to the game itself. For example, if a game was developed in Koera it would be sensible to list a Korean release date, but for a game like Command & Conquer: Red Alert, listing a Korean date would be a little excessive. Miremare 23:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Ick, I definately do not like that sandbox example. Anomie 03:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
About Outlive, I find it funny in regards to this discussion for a game that is notably Brazilian to not mention the Brazilian release date. Let me propose my ideal situation... that someone make country-code SVGs that would have full-name hover-text, so that it looks like JA or JAP or whatever, but if you hold the mouse over (or it's being read by TTS software), it reads as "Japan" or "Japan release date". And we lose the flags. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not, for clarity's sake, just use the complete country/region name, as above? The two criticisms I have of the current approved system of "NA", "EUR" and "JAP" is that these are too broad and are unecessary abbreviations. The only reason I favoured the flags was that their meaning was clearer than the abbreviations, but full country/region names are clearer than both flags and abbreviations. Miremare 17:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
As long as we can come up with some sort of limit (or style guide) for the number of countries in the Infobox so that we don't get a hideously long list, then I'm be OK with full country names. - X201 17:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There won't be any problem with the number of countries/regions if we apply Miremare's suggestion about English-speaking countries above (most often we probably won't have more than 3 or 4 dates for them). I think the problem of length is caused by the number of platforms of release, like in GTA:SA. By the way, it seems South Africa does get release dates sometimes: see World of WarCraft (the dates for South Korea and for these countries-with-funny-flags can probably be removed in this article). Kariteh 18:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Why would you want country-code SVGs? The full name from the wikilink is already put into the title attribute, which should be picked up by screen readers and such. As for using full names, I still don't think it's a good idea unless we use abbreviations for at least North America and Austrailasia; they take up too much space with the current layout (even enclosed in <small> and <sup>), and something like this IMO looks awful. Anomie 18:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure slight abreviations could be used, such as "N. America" if space is really a concern, though "United Kingdom", the longest name on the example template I posted back up there somewhere, fits comfortably and is longer than either "North America" or "Australasia", so I don't see space as being a problem. Miremare 19:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking back, I think abbreviations can be used after all. We're forgetting the essential: that the main release dates are repeated in the article's lead anyway. We can thus abbreviate North America however we want, since the information is repeated in full letters right at the left of the infobox. There may be lesser "important" dates that are listed in the infobox but not repeated in the lead, but it's not a huge issue since we should limit the dates to English-speaking countries (it doesn't takes a degree in cryptography to guess what UK and CAN refer to). In the rare and theorical case that we'd have to list obscure abbreviations like one for Taiwan or Macau, it would also not be a problem because, if these releases are important enough to be noted, then they would be noted and discussed in the article too anyway, in the lead and/or in some special section, meaning that the abbreviations would still be understandable to the reader. Of course, if we manage to find a good and elegant solution for the full names, it would be good too. I still think the font on the example above on the right is too small though. Kariteh 21:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Taking that approach, one could almost argue, that this is the English Wikipedia, that only releases that are key to English-speaking parts of the world should be noted in the infobox with any other notable releases added in the body prose. From a standpoint of video games (where Japanese releases are very important), that means the only releases that should be listed explicitly in the info box are: US, Canada (together as N. America), UK, France, Germany, and others (as Europe), Japan, and Australia. The only exception to these should be the case that if a game was released first and specifically in a country outside of these (and not just a day or so before the others), then it should be added. Again, this is just the infobox so that we're not filling it up with extensive release dates, only the ones that apply to the English version of WP. If there are other notable countries or regions they can be identified in the main body. --Masem 21:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Disliking both flags, the template for names, and long infoboxes, whenever needed and possible, I try to describe release dates in the text body, usually in the lead or in Development. See Supreme Commander. Fact: no one cares about different release dates being in the infobox or in the prose, except for nationalistic interests. Fact: large infoboxes decrease the value of everything written in the infobox. User:Krator (t c) 21:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I care about them being in the infobox rather than the prose. Not due to nationalistic interests, I don't quite understand what you mean there, but because of the fact that a block of text about release dates is about as interesting to read as it sounds, and completely uneccessary to boot. The majority of articles I've seen have mentioned the year of release (being usually the same in each region) in the lead, and the full date(s) in the infobox. There's no point repeating these anywhere, as you rightly say, and the infobox, being standard, is where they are easiest for the reader to find. Sometimes it's just better not to write about things in the main text, and pretty much everything in the infobox needn't be gone into in the article itself. Miremare 22:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


So the current status quo is no flags and three letter country text.
I think we should keep battering away at this issue and get it nailed down. I'll try and run with some of the ideas above and make infoboxes of them using real-life examples (from simple to horrendous) to try and find the best all-round solution. - X201 08:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, not just country text but country or region text, and not necessarily three letters (could be two). Kariteh 08:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Or full names. :) I agree that we should keep going with this until we get something sorted. Miremare 17:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A guideline on lists, perhaps?

As a project, we keep running into issues with lists of things, and whether they are notable, encyclopaedic and necessary. I have been thinking of writing a difficult guideline with all kinds of inclusion tests involving reliable sources and difficult policies. However, given the scope of our project, it might actually be easier to name the most frequent examples. It would make AFD a lot easier, and would divert a lot of energy towards actual article writing. A draft is in User:Krator/Sandbox2, transcluded below. User:Krator (t c) 18:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


I believe that this template has grown overly large (being substantially longer than some of the articles it's on) and would suggest that it be split into two or three smaller templates. For instance, the "franchises" part could be a separate Template:Sega franchises. >Radiant< 11:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: make all subdivisions hide/showable, as the templates at the bottom of Germany are. User:Krator (t c) 14:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Spin franchises off to its own template, it's big enough. hbdragon88 00:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reception review score tables

For most newer games, it appears that common practice is to now include a table of review scores from "major sources" in addition to Metacritic and GameRankings to summarize the critical response to the game, with the prose of the section used to identify key elements that reviews liked or disliked. This is no problem, as far as I can tell, as long as one doesn't repeat the scores in the prose. (If this is a problem, we should discuss that too, as there's a lot of new games that have adapted that format).

My concern here is in that table, what constitutes a "major source". Again, GameRankings and Metacritic (GR/MC) information is obviously a good neutral location, but then what other sites go there? What I've seen happen is that people will add their "favorite" more indy review site to list, or these lists get out of hand. My suggestion is to determine what the core set of major review sites should be in that table (assuming they've reviewed it), possibly going as far to create a template for this, so that these review tables don't get out of hand.

Major sources are going to various with platform. An Xbox only game will likely include OXM, while a PC game will likely have PC Gamer. But then you have common ones like IGN, Gamespot, 1UP. And then there's the rub, is that everyone likely has a site they'd love to have and a site they would avoid completely for game reviews, so there would need to be consensus for this.

There also may be cases where one must include other sources if its judged that the review scores given by the major sites outside of GR/MC are not telling the whole review story, but this could either be described by the prose or special rows to such a table could be added.

So my questions, in order, are:

  1. Are review score summary tables appropriate for reception sections?
  2. If so, should such tables be limited to "major" gaming review sites? (outside of GR/MC)
  3. If so, what are those "major" gaming review sites that should be included?
  4. If this is done, would it make sense to create a template to help keep the focus of the review table

--Masem 15:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. They are a useful addition to, but not a replacement for, good prose in a reception section. For an overview on what is written in such a section, a table may be useful.
  2. No. They should be limited to gaming review sites that are reliable sources. This list is limited enough to not have to limit it further. A table should include all reviews included in a reception section.
  3. See above.
  4. No.
User:Krator (t c) 15:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Tips for sharpening some FAs

My current FAC is dead until I finish talking to the show's writers. I've been solely occupying my time with that until now. With Frank Klepacki a main page debutee, I'd love to get a few of the others on the main page:

Anyone want to offer any tips for sharpening those up? I know the plot summary paranoia has grown exponentially in the last few months, but I'm probably not going to cave on Chrono Cross (since the plot is byzantine and needs that kind of attention). Also, Cross is a little strange because there's a lot of information we have yet to glean from Ultimania / Missing Piece, as the Compendium is having the hardest time in the world finding a translator. It's to the point that we're considering paying someone to translate all the small Missing Piece notes. I can probably slim down the other FAs' plots, though. Any estimates / tips / advice (not just on the plot section) would be great. Now that Torchic is a failure, it's time to retake the glory. Well, I realize there have been VG articles up since Torchic, but...being dramatic here, eh?

Also, would Radical Dreamers make a small candidate like System Shock? I'm guessing it wouldn't, mainly because there are no critical reviews / sales data available on it whatsoever. Zeality 04:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking through at least Chrono Cross and Chrono Trigger, most of the plot is based on in-universe information (direct quotes, or materials released by the game developer specific for the game). By what is being discussed in WP:FICT and WP:WAF is that while in-universe information is great to support the fictional aspect of an article, the notability of such needs to have support from out-of-universe sources. Basically, both are way too long for encyclopedic treatment of the information and should only have enough plot information to discuss the notable aspects of the game that use out-of-universe information (gameplay, development, reception, etc.); this also applies to the character lists as well. It's been a while since I've played Chrono Trigger, but the plot can be summed up (not as susinctly) as "Chrono and his friends must travel through time to prevent a great evil from taking over their world". --Masem 04:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with using primary sources for the plot information, as long as no conclusions are drawn beyond what is stated in the source. WP:FICT deals with notability, and to quote from Wikipedia:Notability: "These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles.". So as long as there are reliable secondary sources to support the notability of the games, WP:FICT is satisfied. WP:WAF deals more with article content, but it specifically includes plot in its list of things that can be sourced from the primary source. As long as undue weight is not given to the plot summary or other gameplay aspects, it doesn't matter if the sources are primary or secondary.
I think some are taking the plot summary paranoia and "secondary sources for everything" a bit too far. Anomie 12:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, primary sources are fine for the plot, but any out-of-universe notability helps if it can be included (dunno for the above games due to age and lack of secondary references) I think from what I'm seeing happening on WP:FICT is that there's a general consensus, but details are being worked out so guidelines haven't been changed; these will likely changed in the next week or so. So sitting and waiting might be a good idea here. My personal opinion is that that plot summary can be pared down a lot; there's details in the current versions that are not necessary to understand and appreciate that this is an RPG that uses time-travel concepts. I know that the WP Films project has a WP:MOSFILMS plot length guideline suggesting 400-600 words in length. I don't think such a guideline necessary works directly with video games due to the drastic differences between some games that do contain plot in the first plot; what would apply to Gears of War would not apply to Final Fantasy VII, but I think some guidelines based on the type of genre are appropriate (though again, these are guidelines, not requirements, and its always better to be shorter if you can, but a complex FPS may need a bit more plot (such as the case in BioShock). --Masem 12:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Anomie's right. There is nothing wrong with using a work of fiction to source a plot summary of that work of fiction. — Brian (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

List of animals in Zoo Tycoon 2

Should this be sent to AFD? It seems to fall under the same type of listcruft as car/vehicle lists and so on that isn't very acceptable for Wikipedia. It also appears to be game guide content. RobJ1981 07:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Load... Aim... AFD - X201 10:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Indiscriminate information; it wouldn't survive an AfD. Marasmusine 20:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I put it in AFD, if anyone wants to comment. RobJ1981 22:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

AFD→Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animals in Zoo Tycoon 2

outcome = delete
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Castles II: Siege and Conquest - Not a Windows Game

I noticed that the page for Castles 2 says it's a Windows (and others) game and the requirements says Windows 95 for PC. This isn't true; the game was a DOS game, released in 1992 (which is correct on the page for MacOS, but for PC it says 1995) thus wouldn't require Windows 95. In fact, it doesn't run under Windows 95 very well; you'd have to reboot into DOS mode to make it run correctly.

I suggest we fix it. (I'd have done it, but this Project Video Games thing made it look like I shouldn't do so.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbreaker (talkcontribs)

If your statement is true, then be bold and change it. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm this. Feel free to change anything - this is Wikipedia, after all. The project is to help video game editors, not to hold them back. User:Krator (t c) 07:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Category question

Category:Animal video games: is this needed? It's a bit broad to me. You could classify Sonic (among many others) as animal video games. I'm thinking of sending it to CFD, as a clear case of overcategorization, and it's too broad. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 04:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

CFD. User:Krator (t c) 07:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
AKA the Zoo Tycoon and Wildlife Park category. CFD - X201 07:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
CFD; far too broad, even humans are technically animals. Haipa Doragon (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I just put it in CFD, if anyone wants to comment. RobJ1981 00:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible page to your WikiProject

Heya. I'm not sure how things work around here, but I thought that this page might fall under the umbrella of your project, since Nintendo is featured prominently in the film. Just bringing it to your attention. --UsaSatsui 20:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:VG Requirements

Anyone want to help kick the tires around for Template:VG Requirements, a template to help with personal computer-based system requirements. I currently only have it set to handle one platform type in the box, as making the other versions is just a matter of copy, paste, and replace, but I want to make sure the way the table looks and works for just one platform is going to meet everyone's goals. (Document is on the page as well as an example). --Masem 23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments

I've recently done major edits on Master of Orion, Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares and Space Empires III. Comments would be appreciated.Philcha 23:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The references aren't formatted properly; see this. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The Gameplay and User Interface sections appear to go into far too much detail per WP:NOT#GUIDE. If you're unsure about the level of detail needed, remove anything which won't be of any use to someone who doesn't intend to or hasn't played the game. Most game articles also have Reception and Development sections - have a look at some video game featured articles to get an idea of how to write these sections.
Additionally, the screenshots uploaded to Space Empires III have the wrong licensing/copyright tag stuff. If the game is, as the article suggests, still sold by the developers (and they hold the copyright), you'll need a fair use rationale as well as the {{Non-free game screenshot}} tag. I may be wrong as it seems to be shareware, though. Una LagunaTalk 16:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Even if it is shareware, images would still need {{Non-free game screenshot}} and a rationale unless the shareware license is free or specifies a free license for screenshots. It doesn't look like it does, so unless you request permission from the copyright holders you'll need the non-free tag. Anomie 17:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Space Empires III wouldn't survive an afd. User:Krator (t c) 18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Atari Mania links

An anonymous editor has been adding links to to large numbers of game articles without any particular reasoning and without any real attempt to understand WP:EL as far as I can see from the discussion on my page. Any views on whether these links should be kept or removed? Cheers --Pak21 11:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove. User:Krator (t c) 11:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd still add {{subst:uw-spam1}} or {{subst:Blatantspam}} even if it is an anon, so administrators know what they're dealing with if there's a problem in the future, and also so that the editor realizes A)it's SPAM, and B)we've noticed. I'd do it myself, but you haven't named the IP, which is quite tactful of you.~ JohnnyMrNinja 14:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really tactful, but more due to the fact that it's a whole bunch of IP addresses in (see my contributions around 11:50 GMT on 4 September). The editor is certainly aware I think it's spam. --Pak21 14:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hit up the local blacklist m:Spam blacklist to stop this madness. Madness? This is Wikipedia! hbdragon88 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello guys,

I am the poster of the Atarimania links. I still don't understand why these are regarded as spam. They contain more info per game than Mobygames or World of Spectrum usually do. So what is the point I am missing? Even has a link to our site ( Furthermore, Atarimania is a non-commercial project. Again I ask you: what's the problem? Btw., there is no rule that forbids posting as IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't got any indication that the ROM images on the games pages are there with the copyright owners approval - World of Spectrum (your example) actively searches for copyright holders to get their approval (or not) and publishes their communications with the copyright holders on their site. I can find no such respect of copyright on your page which means that the WP:EL restrictions on linking statement "Sites that violate the copyrights of others" applies. - X201 15:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical Order

I have been working on improving the List of PlayStation 2 games, which is in pretty poor condition, but when I looked in WP:STYLE I couldn't find any guidance on alphabetical listings. Should spaces be ignored in this list, or should they come before any letter? Here's an example of what is confusing me: should Starsky & Hutch come before Star Wars or after? New User 02:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars would go first - I don't know about a guideline, but that's how things are usually done. Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I've seen it done both ways- just pick which one you like best and be consistent. --PresN 06:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Tetris & Dr. Mario issues again

As I looked at the article (for the first time in a month or so): I noticed there was some edit warring going on. In late July it was made into a disambig page: then from that point on, it was changed numerous times. The talk page has little activity (no comments since late July), so obviously the editors that were fighting just gave up. In my view: the disambig was just fine, as the game doesn't feature many new things. In my opinion: other collection games should be setup the same way, as there isn't much to say about them besides the usual "This game has these previous games on it" along with a list of them, and brief descriptions that are elsewhere. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 08:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If it can't be redirected anywhere that makes sense, it should have its own article. I don't quite understand what makes a disambig better than a full article. --Mika1h 08:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps some sort of reception section could be added at least. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
What's the point of a small article that duplicates content from 2 articles already? It's not a full article, it's a small article that isn't useful. If the games in the compilation were changed a lot: I could understand a normal article. But in this case: there is very little new content. Here is a link to the disambig version: [2]. RobJ1981 01:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the article as it is. Obviously, it doesn't need to explain the gameplay of the two games, but there are little details that are quite informative. In short, I don't see the problem with leaving it as a "fat disambig" as it is.--SeizureDog 06:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyeditor needed for F-Zero

The parts tagged "in-universe", specifically the "Fictional universe" section. A IP has added these tags so I am not quite sure if "F-Zero machines" actually need much work. FMF 18:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Done, as a final note, if anyone is interested, the "gameplay" section right under "overview" can use some expansion as well as the "criticial reception" section. FMF 17:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Mana series FAC

Kingdom Hearts (series) has just passed its FA nomination successfully. Mana (series) seems to be on its way to success too, although one objection remains: the article needs copyediting. It would be a shame if its FA nomination fails only because of this, so please consider helping. I copyedited it a bit, but English isn't even my first language and I spent a lot of time on the article since its early days as a stub-class, so it would be great if a pair of "fresh eyes" could look at it. Kariteh 17:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Car Lists in Racing Games

I strongly object to the notion that car lists in racing games are so-called indiscriminate information. The argument that these lists are superfluous because they are interesting just to players of the games (who have other means of learning about the set of cars) is misguided in my view. Yes, such a list is interesting mainly to the players of a game. And that is exactly why such lists should be included.

Just like current, former and prospective future users of a mathematical concept are the main clientele of a maths article, I believe that current, former and prospective future players of a game are the main clientele for an article on a video game. And just as a maths article should cater mainly (but not exclusively) for its main readers, racing game articles should cater mainly (but not exclusively) for the game players.

Some current players of a game have a special interest in these lists, in that they want to learn about real-life characteristics of the cars they drive in the game. Some game guide sites may also provide this information, but this fact alone does not make such a list inappropriate for Wikipedia, in my view. In particular, Wikipedia likely makes it easier than game-guide sites to find high-quality real-world information about the cars. Former players may for example want to look up a car that they remember from a game, but do not remember the exact type of.

Saying that the set of in-game cars is distracting or superfluous is POV, in my view. To say it more strongly, removing existing high-quality, fully-linked car lists strikes me as destructive. Yes, in a paper encyclopedia, I'd say the space used by the lists should better be used otherwise, but this is not a paper encyclopedia. Neither Wikipedia as a whole nor single articles are space-constrained (at least racing game articles are usually comfortably short).

Note also that even if such a list has not been published elsewhere on the web, it is still verifiable, since the game itself is a reliable published source. The fact that some readers have no easy way of verifying it is irrelevant - many printed references are hard to check for many readers, too.

For the players, a Wikipedia article can be the most focused and easy-to-navigate information hub. This is especially true for older games where the community is falling apart, sites vanish or disintegrate and high-quality information becomes hard to come by. And one of Wikipedia's goals is to serve as a long-term knowledge harbor: freely share in the sum of all knowledge.

Wikipedia is there for its readers. Car lists present a convenient and interesting memory and navigation aid for the main readers of racing game articles. Accept no substitutes, Wikipedia is where it's at! -- 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe one of the main points is that there's nothing particularly special about the specific cars themselves. Pretty much any difference between cars in various racing games of the same type are going to be cosmetic. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, 85.180, for your well written opinion. Your arguments were clear, though some were irrelevant or plain false in my opinion. Your first statement is that the fact that these lists primarily appeal to players of the game is precisely why they should be included. The converse is the case: such lists are not suitable for inclusion because of that reason. I will refute your supporting arguments to prove that point.
85.180's first argument is that players of a game should in fact be considered the main audience of an article. This is false. Wikipedia's articles are written to be readable by the so called educated layman. Someone who is educated, but has no specialist knowledge of the field. The mathematical methaphor employed is not true. The main clientèle for mathematical articles are not the users of a mathematical concept, but those who are interested in it, yet have no specialist knowledge (see: WP:MOSDEF). The same applies for game articles: it is not the players we write for, it is those who are interested in a game.
85.180's second argument is based on the utility of the lists. I do not dispute this fact. However, not everything that is useful, has a place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has limits, covered by WP:NOT. All further arguments put forth above are irrelevant, because of one simple reason: use the alternative. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, but several gaming wikis exist. Those wikis are written for players of the game. No existing high quality list will be removed, because they can be moved, saving the content.
Car Lists are harmless, true. But that does not make them suitable for inclusion. User:Krator (t c) 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
PS: User:Melodia's point above is true, but only applies to car lists. The above applies to just about everything listed as bad here.
I just have to also agree to Melodia's comments above: science and math articles can be decreed too technical, just as game articles can be too much like a game guide. There is no problem summarizing that a car game has various vehicles from certain manufactures, but to list every single car without giving context is unnecessary. --Masem 23:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful replies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC) First, I will make it clearer what I want. Yes, such lists are not necessary (with or without context). Very few cars are notable enough to make them a "must write about". When I say "such lists should be included", I mean that removing a high-quality list (even without an introductory paragraph) decreases Wikipedia's quality. Yes, lists should have introductory paragraphs, stating in general terms what kinds of cars are available at what point in the game, what role they play, what else is interesting about them, etc. However, my preference is to leave a "naked" list as it is, an opportunity to add an introduction, rather than remove the information.

Now I will try to counter some of your arguments.

players of a game [are] the main audience... is false. be readable by the so called educated layman. These two are not exclusive. Yes, in my opinion the (somewhat) educated layman should be the target audience of Wikipedia as a whole (not that I'm aware of an explicit policy towards this, to me this is implied by "WP is an ecyclopedia"). Yes, a game article should be easy to read by non-players. However, in my view, most players are still educated laymen with respect to the games that they play (at least as long as they have not finished it), so they are a subgroup of the target audience. And I believe that most of the "reading time" that a game article gets is spent by the game's players (someone has any data on this?). This is why I think that players are the main audience. In your words it is those who are interested in a game - these, I believe, are mostly players.

Harmless - As in mostly harmless, this is derogatory, implying "not even interesting". And this is what I object to. Some of these lists are interesting. Even if they lack some prose, which would admittedly make them interesting to more readers. In some racing game articles, users regularly try to add a car list, only to find it deleted on the grounds of "game guide material". Obviously, these users find the lists interesting enough to spend the time adding them.

Wikipedia is written for a general audience, ... - as a whole, yes, but with respect to an individual article, no. What constitutes the "educated layman" is relative, it varies by article. As you said, the articles are written for people interested in the subject. Furthermore, articles do not have to be homogeneous. Earlier parts of an article should be readable by someone who has no knowledge of the subject. Later sections may cater to special interests.

...but several gaming wikis exist. Those wikis are written for players of the game. This does not preclude Wikipedia from catering to players as well, especially when the interested readers consist mainly of players. Which Wiki to write for is also an issue of trust, longevity and author community fragmentation. I trust wikipedia, a lot (and yes, I have an account, but I don't want to use it for gaming stuff). The chances of long-term survival of editig efforts are higher for Wikipedia than on other Wikis.

No existing high quality list will be removed, because they can be moved, saving the content. A wish not come true. Fully linked, correct lists have been removed, without any suggestion as to where they might be more appropriate.

To potential list deleters I say: Removing a well-formatted, correct list is a disservice to Wikipedia users. Leave the lists there, for others to improve, or even better, improve them yourself. -- 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your prompt replay, which prompts me to address the issues you raised. Some simply repeat the arguments put forth in the first note above. I will not further address those arguments. Firstly, concerning your intention, I must note that I fully understand it. However, the main argument behind this intention is not sound: no information is (or at least should be) lost when deleting.
The first and apparently main point of discussion remains the audience of articles related to racing games. We agree that those who are interested in a particular game are the main audience for the article. The conjecture made above is that this audience mainly consists of players. There are two main arguments against this conjecture. Firstly, it is not true, and secondly, if it was true, it would not be irrelevant.
Players are indeed the main group interested in reading about racing games. Other groups are interested as well, for example, parents of (mainly young) players and random curious people. An important fact to recognise here is that of all groups, players are the least likely to use Wikipedia as their source. The vast majority of players mainly read gaming sites, including fansites, gaming wikis and - sites (gamespot etc). They have the same reasons for doing this as molecular biologists who do not use Wikipedia to read about molecular biology. Conversely, parents and random curious people (to expand upon the examples above) would mainly use Wikipedia to read about racing games. Concluding, players, though the main interested group, are not the main audience of Wikipedia articles on the games they play.
Though, I cannot deny there are some racing games players who read the Wikipedia articles on the games they play, and that they might like car lists. The most important point here is that the article should appeal to the common interest, and only to the specific interest groups as far as the shared interest goes. To give some outrageous examples, Wikipedia does not have a "list of scenes parents should skip because of excessive blood" to appeal to the worried parents. Wikipedia does not have a "list of cultural references on bumper stickers in this racing game" to appeal to the trivia seekers. Wikipedia does not write for every specific interest group. Wikipedia writes only that which can reasonably be presumed to be relevant to an encyclopaedia article written for a general educated audience, provided WP:5. Car lists in racing games do not fit the bill.
The argument concerning trust in Wikipedia, and lack of trust in gaming wikis is a logical fallacy commonly called two wrongs make a right. Because gaming wikis happen to be "wrong", it will not make the situation "right" by doing another "wrong" thing: including the information in Wikipedia. On the deletion of high quality lists, this is a failure of the process, not in the policy. I am confident that any administrator would be happy to undelete a high quality list to facilitate moving the information to a gaming wiki. One could even consider making a WP:BOTREQ on this, making a list of closed AfDs that did not transwiki properly.
To any potential list deleters, I say, this day we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny, and usher in a future brighter than anything we could imagine. User:Krator (t c) 22:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
There is gaming wikis, and I would imagine some enjoy listing cars (along with any and all other vehicle lists, item lists, weapon lists and so on). I suggest those as an alternative. I don't edit gaming wikis, so I'm not sure which allow that type of content. This issue has been brought up numerous times on Wikipedia though. Wikipedia simply isn't a guide to every little note on video games, which is why we don't list cheats for games, vehicle lists and other things. RobJ1981 03:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

An important fact to recognise here is that of all groups, players are the least likely to use Wikipedia as their source. - Until someone presents me with the data that I explicitly asked for, to me this is not a fact, it is a conjecture. By the way, I think it is true, by a small margin. However, even if it were known to be true, players may still be the main audience. "least likely" means that the ratio of players that go to WP vs. players that go elsewhere is lower than the ratio of non-players that go to WP vs. non-players that go elsewhere. This is not what we are discussing. What we want to know is the ratio of players that read an article vs. the number of non-players that read it. And this ratio also depends on the ratio of total players vs. total non-players that read about the article's topic, anywhere. Rephrased in math:

P:= Players; N:= Non-Players; W:=Who prefer Wikipedia; E:=Who prefer elsewhere
P_W/P < N_W/N !=> P_W < N_W

I believe P >> N, so that P_W > N_W.

Regarding "two wrongs": this does not apply in my view because in my view the second statement "lists are OK" is true. As an aside, an example of a nice gaming wiki that went bad is the game innovation database.

There are two main arguments against this conjecture. Firstly, it is not true, - Interesting argumentation method here. and secondly, if it was true, it would not be irrelevant. - Surely you are joking? Relevancy of a conjecture that turns out to be true is an argument against the conjecture? Good night.

-- 23:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think car lists should absolutely be allowed in video game articles. It's just info like every other thing in the article. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to let you know all of the knowledge of it's contributers? The first post in this section pretty much states what I think. Car Lists Should Be Allowed! FogDevil 17:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Your argument suggests it's therefore okay to add any information about anything relating to the subject of the article. By that logic, if I knew what a famous person had for breakfast in the past week, I could include it as it's "info like every other thing in the article" and it's something which one of Wikipedia's contributors knows. Hmm. Somehow I get the impression that isn't such a good idea. Una LagunaTalk 18:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A car list doesn't "relate" to the game, it's directly about the game! FogDevil 02:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a very fine point, but no, for most of the car games I'm aware of, the list of cars is not information directly about the game.
More specifically, most driving games have gameplay that is non-specific to the individual cars that may be in the game. There may be classes of cars, there may be front-wheel vs rear-wheel drive, there may be American vs European vs Asian, but these gameplay details are generic to exactly what cars are present in the game. There is probably a few exceptions to this, where the specific model of the car is the key defining feature of the game, but off the top of my head, I can't think of any. (If, say, there was an Initial D game strictly allowing the player to only drive the AE86, then of course it should be mentioned.) Or (and I can't think of any game that has done this yet) a game includes a yet-available car as part of a marketing campaign, that specific car can be mentioned, since that's a notable factor.
Again, the point is that we as WP editors are trying to rely information to the widest possible audience about the game assuming they will never play it and have no interest in the game outside of researching it. We need to tell them the necessary gameplay details, so describing how cars are classified is worthwhile, but the specific way each car is classified is non-essential and not directly related to the game. This applies to pretty much every "List of x" game elements as well. --Masem 02:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As you said, there are classes, but you said driving games have gameplay non-specific to the individual car. In games like Juiced and Need For Speed: Carbon, the car type and the RWD/FWD/4WD make huge impacts on the gameplay. I also see most of your points as well, but I fail to understand how this information is not directly related to the game. My mentality is, if it's in the game, it's about the game. FogDevil 03:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't argue the impact of parameters of the car affecting how the game plays in most modern games. But basically, when you come down to it, from my experience with car games, you basically get a large number of different vehicles that have different values for all those parameters. What they're called or who they're made by is inconsequential to the mechanics of the game. I'm hoping I'm trying to explain this well enough, but basically, because it's really not the cars themselves but their parameters, the make and name of the cars in a car game are non-notable details, only what parameters are used to affect the game's performance. --Masem 03:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this statement. Which cars are notable in what games is a little too subjective for the scope of Wikipedia - for instance, I happen to think that the presence of the Toyota Prius in a version of Gran Turismo is rather noteworthy, but since various Ferrari and Lancer models show up in virtually all racing games these days and your average reader probably doesn't know or care about the differences between each individual Ferrari and Lancer model, there's little point in doing more than mentioning the various classes of cars available in each game, maybe the total number of cars (since some games gain notability by having more cars than other games), etc. If a particular car is present in only one game (like the Prius in GT), then it might be worth mentioning in particular, and that can be done in prose.
Basically, I see lists of cars and tracks in racing games to be at the same level of detail as the list of fruits in Pac-Man, or the list of teams and individual players in virtually any sports game. There's nothing particularly special about those lists from game to game, and as such, summarizing them seems most appropriate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
If gameplay incorporates differences based on vehicle types, that should be described in prose with proper referencing to official sites or instruction manuals. That still isn't a reason to - and in fact is quite irrelevant to - a full vehicle list. A vehicle list isn't "about" the game at all; it's a trivial list of what's in the game. Look on the back of a video game box - the furthest a developer/publisher will go is to state the number of vehicles in the game or, in some cases, provide examples of manufacturers. It is very rare for a game to come with a full list of vehicles anywhere other than in the game itself.
There are some exceptions. If a game is designed around a small number of vehicles, such as five unique vehicles with different gameplay features, there's no problem in describing them, as they would be the focus of the game's development. We don't even need a list for that, but using a list would be an acceptable form of conveying that information. In contrast, when a game's focus is not on the actual vehicles and the differences are mainly in minor handling tweaks and appearance, there's little purpose a 40-car list can fulfill other than for the sake of trivia.
What does this mean? It means that even in the scope of game developers advertising to gamers, the actual vehicles in the game are marginal compared to the gameplay, and the focus of Wikipedia articles in relation to gaming is to share and discuss information on the game and its development rather than transcribing the game's content. Gamers don't need to know everything in the game in order to buy or play it. The general reader doesn't need to know about it either, and Wikipedia caters for the general reader, not the gamer. --Scottie_theNerd 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I want to point out this problem: Gran Turismo 5 Prologue. A car list keeps getting re-added in. Just because the game isn't out, doesn't justify the list. RobJ1981 11:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
For all of my racing games, the cars are also featured in the manual. FogDevil 22:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
That Wikipedia caters for the general reader is a valid point, but surely the purpose of this website is to provide every possible piece of information that a user may need. To this end, and so as not to frustrate the reader with seemingly endless lists of trivia, why not create a seperate page dedicated to this information. This way only those who wish to see it will see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eoin24 (talkcontribs) 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Metroid Prime 3: Corruption article in need of work

It needs a bit of work. The plot should be condensed and cleaned. Also, what should be done about the development section? The making of a game is important, but I personally don't think it should be that big. The game is popular and a big Nintendo title: but that doesn't justify huge sections that could be condensed. Anyone willing to help? RobJ1981 05:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I can help improve the plot once I'm done with the game, but I don't think the development section is bad, it's actually a good length (particularly once you cut down the plot) for a modern game. --Masem 05:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I just tackled it (I'm a 91% in game, I'm not worried about spoilers *grin*), and got that down to 4 paragraphs for the plot. Probably could be trimmed a tad it more. --Masem 05:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Is the Voice cast section really necessary? Ashnard Talk Contribs 06:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The Super Mario 64 (former FA) included it, so I included it on Super Princess Peach (former GA on my own accord both for nom/delisting). I guess it could be removed. At the very least delete the voice actors without context – that is, the ones that don't list who they voiced. hbdragon88 20:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The question to ask is, is the voice work or voice cast notable outside of the game? (this applies to all examples above). It would be one thing if a significant celebrity was voicing a character, but if it's the usual no-namers or regular players, it can probably be dropped. --Masem 20:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for that. By the way, does anybody else feel that the gameplay section is rather... inadequate? I've mentioned on the talk page about the lack of any mention of scanning. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC) D'oh. Wrong game. I'm thinking of Metroid Prime. Sorry. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would normally group all the common features of a series into the series page (this being Metroid (series) in this case) and then {{see also}} to that, such that the gameplay summarizes the existing and briefly discusses the new features. But remember, just like plot, the gameplay should be limited to notable features that make sense to a non-gamer that will likely never ever play the game. Yes, scanning is important, it should be noted, but I think the size of the gameplay section is actually a tad long? maybe... --Masem 18:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

{{Cite video game}}

Are there official guidelines regarding the use of this template? In particular, I would like to know how character quotes should be formatted (Character: text). Apparently, a lot of articles put the character name in bold then the text in regular font (Character: text); however, this directly clashes with the Wikipedia guidelines WP:MOSBOLD. Since MOSBOLD is a guideline rather than a policy, I suppose we could continue using bold font in VG articles if this usage were one of our guidelines, but I've seen it written nowhere in the project's manual of style pages. Thoughts? I'm asking this because of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mana (series) by the way. Kariteh 09:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No comment? I'm sure I'll upset many people if I start removing these bold font from all the quotes used in video game articles, so please say something. Kariteh 21:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I dislike the bold face used for the character names when citing something said by a specific character. This is bad per WP:MOSBOLD, so a change would definitely have my support. User:Krator (t c) 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 2, Final Fantasy VII, VIII IX and X, Metal Gear Solid... most use bold text because otherwise the transcripts are incredibly hard to read for quotes. Incidentally, basically no one uses the quote= paremeter of {{Cite video game}}, because it places it last in the citation, which is extremely unhelpful. David Fuchs (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest changing the placement of the quote, then. Maybe replace the bold face with underlining? User:Krator (t c) 00:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Underlining is forbidden in the same guideline because "it may be confused with links on a web page." Kariteh 09:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do here is to forget it. As it's a guideline, and in the interests of clarity, I think it's safe to ignore. After all, it's in the references section anyhow, so it's out of the way. David Fuchs (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Gamer should be one of the central articles in the scope of our wikiproject. In light of the recent AfD, perhaps we should collaborate on tarting it up with some references, et cetera, and get it out of Start class. I will be digging out my stack of Edge magazines. Marasmusine 11:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not in the mood for working on it now, but I dumped a PR on the talk page, in case anybody is interested. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This article would have made a good GCOTW... However, since User:Thunderbrand has left Wikipedia and I am no longer capable of maintaining the GCOTW the collaboration has ended for now. Is there anyone here that would be willing to maintain the GCOTW process? It only means updating a couple of templates once a week and pruning expired entries, as explained in the update guide? Any takers? If someone comes forward who is willing to do the work for the next few months we could restart the collaboration. Personally I feel that having a weekly collaboration was a good thing, especially on articles like this... JACOPLANE • 2007-09-15 01:47
I'd be happy to jumpstart GCOTW. I've prolly got the time to update it at least once daily, I'd just need to familiarize myself with the process. David Fuchs (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Best games of all time

What would be the best way to create a page like this? I think there was one, but it was deleted or merged somewhere. There has to be an encyclopedic way to make such an article/list. Judgesurreal777 20:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a very subjective topic for an article - where do you draw the line on what is a "best" game? Perhaps sticking to articles such as Interactive Achievement Awards, Game Critics Awards or Game Developers Choice Awards (or see Category:Video game awards) is preferable? --Oscarthecat 21:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
There are things like Famitsu#All Time Top 100 by the readers. I guess a list could be compiled that took lists from different sources. We could take all-time ratings from things like metacritic, but those are based on online reviews and would be biased towards recent games. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-14 21:26
The better question is "Do we need such a page?" --Masem 21:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Video games notable for negative reception :/ Kariteh 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
A fairly steady stream of games have been called the "best ever" - I'm sure it would be much easier to source than Video games notable for negative reception will be if it gets moved back to List of video games considered the worst ever. Miremare 00:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, we have top selling, notably negative reception. so those are about video games notable for most positive reception or most award winning, or an article about important games in the history of gaming, such as Mario 64, starfox, etc, focusing on the technological progression in gaming. Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 00:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Better, but still possibly open for POV issues. Framing it around other publications that are generally considered authorities on the subject would be better, IMO. ("Technological breakthroughs as reported in ...", etc.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Per Judgesurreal777 we could make use of Films considered the greatest ever as a good example. Well sourced, avoids the POV element too. --Oscarthecat 09:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
So, Video games considered the greatest ever would include top rated games in terms of awards, in terms of notable magazines and game makers, and technological progress. How would that fair do you think? Judgesurreal777 20:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You may want to be carful making this list. One that had a similar title was deleted a few months back. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video games that have been considered the greatest ever. I am not sure how this proposed version would compare to that list but it may be a good idea to attempt to verify that they are not too similar or the proposed page may be speedly deleted. 23:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Weird (disappearing) image size problem

I'm getting a weird problem on the Sega Mega Drive and the Sega Mega-CD articles. The images of the consoles are not displaying, all other articles that use tamplate VG system are OK except for the two Sega articles, if I drop the image size by a couple of px the images reappear. Might be some problem with images that are coming over from Wikimedia but could some one have a quick look to see if they have the same problem, thanks. - X201 22:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The images are not appearing for me either. In fact, I have seen similar instances on other wikipedia articles over the past couple days (can't remember any particular article though). New User 22:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, no images. I saw the same thing with some other images yesterday, but those seem to have righted themselves now, so it's obviously nothing to worry about. Miremare 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a problem with the servers, I hear the developers are aware of it. The problem is that the cached thumbnails are being corrupted somehow; changing the size works because it makes the system create a new thumbnail. You can open up the image page (you may have to go to commons) and purge it to make the system regenerate all the thumbnails for that image, but be forewarned I've heard the corruption may recur later due to the aforementioned problem. Anomie 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I purged it and it restored the image but it only lasted for a couple of hours and then went again. - X201 21:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Old Computer Mags

There's been a few external links added for the site recently. Looking at the site, I'm unsure whether the scans are copyright infringing. The front page makes reference to Creative Commons licensing, but no statement from the publisher is present. Should such links be removed until this is clear? --Oscarthecat 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, i'm one of editor of this site, i have received a response of all the publisher of magazine, if the site is not commercial and if the site no have banner, i go to publish the scans. Excuse for englivush :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Okay, that's great news. Could you provide details of the confirmation from the publisher - please forgive my suspicious nature, but we've had less genuine people make similar claims before. Many thanks. --Oscarthecat 20:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I would be extremely suspicous here. At least according to Your Sinclair Rock'n'Roll Years, who I know to have made many attempts to contact the people involved with this, the copyright to many of the articles in at least Your Sinclair are held by both the publisher and the author (many of whom were freelancers), so there's no way the publisher could even give this permission. Above and beyond that, the licensing on the front page is inconsistent (licensed under cc-by, but claiming no commercial use), and the whois information for the site is clearly falsified (registered by Clive Sinclair, apparently). None of this strikes me as a legal venture. Cheers --Pak21 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the info Pak21, much appreciated. Just to be safe for now, I've removed the references to this http://www.old-computer-mags site from each of the articles. Once we've got some concrete information from we can get them reinstated. --Oscarthecat 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

hi all, the site is totally amatorial, i need a super mega contract in home page for your sinclair ? i have write to the chief operating officer based on bath BA12BW monmouth street of FUTURE UK and i receiv a response positive, wiki have more and more link to WOS and Amiga magazine rack, your legal info where is ? i search in site .... bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty suspicious about this too. Future Publishing at least is pretty well-known for jealously guarding its property. It entered into lenghty legal goings-on with AP2 for instance (for reproducing images or text from Amiga Power), and stopped distributing scans of its magazines. Have they suddenly changed their minds about this kind of thing? A quick email to someone at would probably answer this conundrum in no time. Any takers? Miremare 03:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
No. You must write to all of Future Publishing (who own the copyright in the layout and a few other bits), the authors of the articles (who own the copyright to the text itself) and the games companies (who own the copyright to the adverts) and receive positive responses from each and every one. Everything else is a copyright violation; it is irrelevant whether your site is amateur, or whether links to other copyright infringing sites exist on Wikipedia or not. You should also read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, which strongly discourage linking to a site with which you are associated. It's not worth wasting Future's time with an e-mail here in my opinion; if permission has been obtained, let the editors of the site show it. --Pak21 07:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi there - I'm the webmaster of the YSRnRY site which has been dedicated to archiving Your Sinclair articles over the past ten years, and have personally been in contact with over 40 people, writers and managers, who used to work on YS.
To reinforce pak21's point, and also stir things up a bit, let me say that the YS copyright situation is even murkier than pak21 points out. Broadly speaking, copyrights for each individual article are split into three categories:
Those owned by the publisher of the time (opinions differ on what transferred between Dennis and Future publisher)
Those printed under a first-publishing basis, meaning once published in YS, the authors have sole copyrights on the work.
Those whose copyrights are shared between publisher and author.
For some articles, opinions differ on which articles fall into what category. Some authors didn't have contracts. Others had contracts which were altered by hand using a pencil during some stage of the transaction. About the only solid fact is that the answer to the question "who owns the copyright on this?" is "not you".
So, I've taken the middle path - republishing articles on my website whilst simultaneously tracking down authors to get their permission, regardless of whether it is needed. I've been in contact with Future, but whilst willing to say things off-the-record, doing things properly and tracking down who owns what is an exercise that costs time and money with little (in fact, none IMHO) return to them. Currently the percentage of approved content on my website is 88%, and I'm currently following a lead on a very prolific YS writer that may push that over 90%. It's perhaps not legally watertight, but everyone involved appears to be happy with it. -- Nick 14:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

hi all, first ,future stop zzap64 site... this site SELL a dvd of ys magazine this is not good. the copyright of article is of future not for author, i have contact future and other publisher (more italian magazine in site). Wos and amiga magazine rack have contacted all the publisher and all the author ? if not... plz leave our site from wiki else wiki is a apartheid site. bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You have a somewhat overinflated opinion of your site if you think that not linking to it is any way comparable to denying human rights to 90% of the population for 40-odd years. --Pak21 12:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove on sight until if and when copyright concerns are sorted - then the site can be added on a case by case basis by editors who do not have a COI. --Fredrick day 13:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

ok ok, my site is not for wiki link, other site ? World of Spectrum --> 118 different magazine type scans, inlay scans, games tape copy Amiga magazine rack --> 25.000 pages scans of different magazine Zzap64 --> full Zzap64 all issue scans Lemon64 --> big database of inlay of games scans C64 Preservation --> copy of games of c64 in disk Project64 --> Text copy of old manual videogames .... and more .....bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a debate about those sites; it is a debate about Old Computer Mags. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --Pak21 16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

i read.... my site is only with the permission ... my site is only not accepted in wiki... good think ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please actual provide some evidence you have this permission you are claiming, particularly with reference to the YSRnRY webmaster's comments above about how Future don't own the rights to at least some of the content. --Pak21 16:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

i have no more time, i think wiki it was various, excuse me, i not insert my site now and in future, if other insert a link in my site leave immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Help with a name change

Nights: Journey of Dreams was recently moved to NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams despite a clear consenus on the first game's talkpage not to use the spelling NiGHTS and noting even remotly close to a consensus to change the second games talk page. I am not regestered so I can't move it. I am asking help to move the page due to there being no consensus to move it and the fact that the current name is a clear violation of the mostm. -- 03:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've put up a request to move the pages back to their original pages over at Wikipedia:Requested moves. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
And further, left a warning over at the mover's talk page to discuss moveso n the talk page before doing them first. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Call of Duty 3

Does anyone think it would be appropriate to add a playable weapons list to the Call of Duty 3 article? Please respond and sign! NYyankees51 23:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not going to get much help asking here, where most of the visibly active editors are against such lists, with good policy-based reasons. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Please note that this discussion has been forwarded as a result of the arguments on NYyankees51's talk page and on my talk page. NYyankee51's arguments claim that the weapons are notable and are interesting. NYyankees51 also presents as confusing argument that a video game article without extensive lists is like a Ford article without a full car list. Ford doesn't have a car list, and no new arguments or sources have been provided to support further debate. --Scottie_theNerd 03:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe parts of that might be on my talk page, alsoDurinsBane87 03:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a guide on a game's guns. Una LagunaTalk 06:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No lists of weapons, ever. For an article to work against, see Call of Duty 2 (Yes, I took it to GA) - No weapon lists there. Check what it does have, add that to CoD3's article, and you'll be well on your way :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Weapons are only notable if they represent some advance in in-game physics or influenced the design of other games. I think the gravity gun in half-life 2 is held up as an example of this. Shotguns that go BOOM and machineguns that go RATATATATATA ? forget it, We've had those types of lists previously and they were AFD'd on sight... and will be again. --Fredrick day 08:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, idea is right, the reason is somewhat off. Weapons are notable if secondary sources (reliable verifiable sources not connected to the in-game universe) provide notable coverage of said weapons, not just because they are "important". HL2's Gravity Gun still qualifies, but most of the other HL2 weapons (sans crowbar) aren't.
That said, if the number of weapons is very brief and can be written as a single line of prose without weighting the article down, I think it's ok to include it. Even moreso, a very brief single sentence in gameplay to describe the general type of weapondry if none of it is notable is still appropriate if only to help the reader understand the types of weapons the shooter may have. For CoD3, this could be a line like "The historical weapons in the game include pistols (such as EX1), rifles (EX2), machine guns (EX3), and grenades." (where EX1 is some of the weapons). Again, that gives enough of a flavor that "Oh, hey, there's guns based on real guns in this game" comes out, without overexhausting the user with unnecessary details of every single weapon.
But a straight up weapons list better be well justified and notable otherwise it will be nixed quickly. --Masem 13:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Providing specific examples seems unnecessary compared to a simple statement of what type of items/weapons are in the game. Singling out examples has the connotation that they are somehow individually notable, which in most cases is untrue. There's nothing wrong with a general "This game utilises real-world modern weaponry, including submachine guns, assault rifles and sniper rifles" — actual description varying with the game. Once you start with examples, you open the door to the whole shebang of in-game minutiae. --Scottie_theNerd 13:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That is true, though I've seen that if in a prose form, newer editors are less prone to add additional examples than if it were in a list form (dunno if its because people immediately look at bulletted lists to see if they are complete, or if they are just easier to find when editing the page). The other tip with examples is that if official game press (news release, back of the box, etc.) says the game contains weapons X, Y, and Z, is to use that quote right there and ref-cite it for perfect justification of those examples without throwing in bias. If you don't think you can keep vigilant about other editors adding examples, then Scottie's right, don't add examples. --Masem 13:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See #Car Lists in Racing Games above for an extensive discussion. User:Krator (t c) 12:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: Some of the comments above seem to be confused over what exactly was proposed here. The proposal was for a section in the main article (to which WP:N would not apply, but WP:WEIGHT, WP:WAF, and WP:NOT would), not a separate article such as List of weapons in Call of Duty 3 (to which WP:N would apply). Personally, I agree with this comment, with the caveat that "notable" in my interpretation doesn't mean "Wikipedia:Notable". Anomie 13:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not trying to make the article a game guide....the list comes straight from the bonus material on every disc. I already made the list twice; all it said was "BAR (linebreak) M1 Garand" etc etc etc.NYyankees51 21:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That would qualify as listcruft. — Malcolm (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Offering such a list without explaining the notability of each entry is basically making a list for list's sake, and is really not appropriate for WP. The only way such a list would be valid is if you can provide why each weapon in the list has notability as used within the game (not its historical notability). I doubt you'll be able to do this, which is why we're suggesting that instead you simply state "COD3 includes historical weapons of WWII." and leave it at that. --Masem 21:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone with historical help for Lemmings?

Given that Lemmings (video game) is high on inclusion for the CVG project, I've been trying to tidy it up so that I can GA/FA it. Thankfully, Mike Dailly has a couple of first-hand accounts of development and some reception, but I'm lacking more on its reception itself which I think is needed before taking it to a GA. The magazine archive page unfortunately lacks issues around the timeframe I need, so I'm trying to find present articles that cite Lemmings as being a critical game ("top 100 games") or how it has influenced other games, but my google-fu is not working well. If you have a good lead on any such articles, please feel free to add it or point me to it them. Any other general help on the page is appreciated as well. --Masem 16:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading a big feature on it in Official Nintendo Magazine; quite a lot of its legacy was mentioned there. I'm not sure how things work with magazines, but I'm pretty sure that I have that issue with me. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The first game was featured in Edge's recent Top 100 list. I'll check to see if there's a quotation from there that might be useful. --Nick RTalk 03:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Games featuring China

Does this need to exist? It seems a bit broad to me. Do other similar categories exist? RobJ1981 23:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing else like it for video games in the sub-cats list. Charlie. Foxtrot. Delta it. - X201 23:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
And seeing as Hong Kong had been handed back to China by it's release, they've made the unforgivable mistake of missing out Deus Ex. - X201 23:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
And Perfect Dark Zero. No wait, that's not unforgivable at all... Miremare 23:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, it's in CFD now. RobJ1981 06:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

id tech (x) names or old names?

id software recently renamed their engines with the id tech (x) names in their official site. The engine names were updated in some articles in the wikipedia too. But some editors objected to the renaming of the engines in articles for games released before the renaming:

"The "id Tech (x)" engines should be referred to by their original names (and not the revisionist "id Tech" names) for historical purposes and for currently-released games (e.g., id Tech 3 --> Quake III Arena engine, id Tech 4 --> Doom 3 engine). However, for Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, "id Tech 4" can be used. Thoughts? Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 04:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)"

I write here to form a consensus on the nomenclature of the engines for games that use the id tech (x) engines.

I think that the new names should be used because they are the "official" ones--Argento3 08:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Argento3. There is no policy or guideline that says that "official" names are prefered to other names. The naming conventions simply say to use the most common name in the English-speaking world. That's also why the article for the game The Legend of Sword and Fairy 3 is named that instead of the official but seldom-used-in-English title Xianjian Qixia Zhuan San. Kariteh 12:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
First impression would be to stay with the existing names but they're common, but then, reading through WP:NAME and WP:NCON, it seems to me that there's a better matching of game/engine if you call them by id tech; that is, the existance of Quake II and id Tech 2 is easier to tell its a difference between game and engine and thus less of a naming conflict than Quake II and Quake II engine (the latter sounds less like a separate product that a specific subcomponent of QII). And check that there are redirects from the old engine names to the new ones, otherwise you'll likely break a good number of infoboxes that use the onld names. --Masem 12:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because id want to go retrospectively changing things about certainly doesn't mean we should toe the line. When you're talking about something from a historical perspective (which we are with Quake) you use the name that was used at the time. Just as if we were talking about the Czech Republic prior to 1993 we would refer to it as Czechoslovakia. The current name has no bearing on historical usage and vice versa. Still, I don't see any problem with using something like "Quake engine/Id Tech" to make it clear they're the same thing - also, explain about these changes on the engine's page. Miremare 14:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you should go with id tech, and always link to the engine's page. On the engine page, make sure to explain which game it was used in originally, and also to say what it was called previously. (ie, The id tech 2 engine is the engine used in Quake 2. It was previously called the Q2 engine until [DATE].) Ong elvin 04:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. There is no basis to use id tech names. The guidelines clearly states to use the most common names, and there is no obvious reason to bypass this guideline. The old names are the most commonly used names. Kariteh 12:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Video games naming convention

Moved discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Naming

Proposed Sources Guideline

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, there is a proposed guideline on sources in articles in the scope of WP:VG. Your edits and comments are appreciated. User:Krator (t c) 15:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Discuss major issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Axem Titanium 16:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Template move

This project changed name from WP:CVG to WP:VG like ages ago, and the templates {{Cvgproj}} and {{Infobox CVG}} should be moved to {{Vgproj}} and {{Infobox VG}} respectively to reflect that. --MrStalker talk 09:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This has recently been brought up and the result of the discussion was that veterans refused to change the names because they like the old names. Kariteh 12:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, that must be the most shitty reason I have heard of. Because they like it? Is there any other reason, that is actually a proper reason? --MrStalker talk 16:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I would rather have Infobox VG and VGproj, but I haven't pushed the point because I know someone will go through every single VG article and update the template name for no reason. Pagrashtak 19:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-25 19:20
Given how fast a bot can do this for us (dropping a request to do so, and doing all VG templates at the same time), it makes no sense not to complete the switch. --Masem 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, a bot can can update all pages using these templates in notime. And if someone wanted to do it manually, why stop him/her? Btw, while the bot is at it, it could switch {{CVG Navigation}} to {{VG Navigation}}. --MrStalker talk 17:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Request For New Guideline

Hi there. I've been editing and browsing Wikipedia gaming articles for a while now. One thing I've noticed is that way too many articles have content that falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. I would like to suggest a new guideline specifically regarding video games. (Not consoles, just the games.)

All video games should only have one page dedicated to them on Wikipedia. Any pages detailing game mechanics, such as Runescape combat, belong to a Gaming Wiki. The only reason a video game should have more than one article directly related to it is when the other articles have nothing to do with how the game is played, such as the Marketing for Halo 3 and Iris articles.

Any thoughts? Ong elvin 00:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of what you're describing falls under WP's notability rules, if even under current fictional notability. It's just that there's no specific VG bent to these though that might be a consideration. We are definitely against game guide material though convincing the bulk of editors is generally an uphill battle.
However, I do argue that say "one page per game" is too strong. 90% of the cases, this is true, but there are some cases where a separate page is appropriate. Remember, we're not just about gameplay, we're about notability to the real-world. Marketing for Halo 3 is a bit excessive, but it is a valid topic. But definitely in the case of any article that goes into gameplay strategy. --Masem 00:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Runescape again... those Runescape combat and RuneScape skills articles are game guides pure and simple, and none of them (excepting the main Runescape article) even come close to notability. I agree with you in principle - a limit of one article per game would render the oft-heard "the main article's too big so we need multiple pages" argument redundant - however as Masem says, this should be covered by WP:N anyway. As this Runescape stuff (amongst others) remains despite having been in violation of notability requirements for several years, I think it's unlikely a new video game specific guideline would have much impact. Miremare 01:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think there are cases where there should be exceptions if the fork is well referenced and it would make the main page too long. For example ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is well referenced and is currently a featured article. At the very least it is better than the Runescape articles. -- 02:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
That's because WP:N applies to whole topics, not individual subpages, and size is a quite valid, important concern. CaptainVindaloo t c e 02:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, I didn't mean it like that (as ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is not about the game itself and is a notable subject on its own). But any game (as in material relating to the game itself) can and should be covered in a single article. Miremare 02:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
What about WP:SIZE? A lot of people still use dialup or older computers/browsers. If the pages even load, they'll need a book to read while they wait. This is worst for large games, like MMOs (your RuneScape example included). What about expansion packs? Long-running game series like Final Fantasy? Particularly real-world notable characters like Lara or Mario? Size issues are probably the main reason many topics have multiple pages. Also, take care to distinguish between gameplay overviews (simple descriptions of how a game is played; "this game is a near-future first person shooter, so features guns like the MP7, as opposed to stone age clubs and onagers") and outright gameguides ("the +3 Sword of Pwnage is hidden in the magic privy in Balmora", or "Darth Icantthinkofaname can be defeated by using the force to dump fifty tonnes of minced Bantha and spice on his head. If HK-47 is in your party, he will make an amusing comment about meatbags"). CaptainVindaloo t c e 02:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
If size is an issue then the article needs to be cleaned up. Every FA on Wikipedia could have more written about it if uneccessary detail were gone into, but if Knights Templar (FA) can be summed up in one article, so can a video game. Expansion packs don't often justify anything more than a paragraph or two, but if one does, it could, being a seperate release, warrant its own page and would likely have the notability to justify it anyway. It's just when we start splitting up articles based on individually non-notable elements that we're taking things too far. Miremare 02:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Knights Templar isn't summed up in one article, it's summed up in 84. And you can't feed individual sections (ie, gameplay overview, plot, reception) that may be in subpages depending on complexity, through WP:N. That's just silly, it'll leave gaping holes in a topic's coverage. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The difference here is that the other articles, such as History of the Knights Templar are notable seperate to the main article, as the literally hundreds of books written on the subject will testify. Take a look at the article's references section and you'll see the multiple reliable sources it cites to prove notability. Miremare 18:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I had the Runescape subarticles in mind specifically. If you look through Runescape combat, the information is all pretty much gameguide material or banal. Explanation of how combat level/skills work? What each attribute affects? How the Classes and Styles work? The whole Combat Triangle section shouldn't even exist to begin with! The most that section deserves is a comparison to a "rock-paper-scissors" format with a link, and that's all it should need. Nevertheless, this kind of rationale could be applied to many gaming articles. There are way too many fanboys who think their pet article is encyclopaedic, when in fact it belongs on a Strategy Guide of some form. Ong elvin 04:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the re-classification of Oblivion, that I would consider separated enough from the main game that it could qualify for its own article. It has implications that go deep into the whole industry, although I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to merge it with info on the Hot Coffee mod. However, I still think at least some form of "one article per game" should be applied. Whether it be saying that, or saying something like Gaming articles do not need more than four paragraphs on their Gameplay systems unless it is extensively complex, but even so it should not have a separate page of its own Or a better and more extensive guideline that says explanations of attributes and what they do do not belong in Wikipedia, not as part of the game's main article, and not as part of a subarticle. Ong elvin 04:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That the RuneScape articles persist is because of one of the few real cabals on Wikipedia. RuneScape is the only article where WP:VG editors have been unable to remove the fansite external links from (something there is a large number of precedents for). Note the difference between "haven't gotten around to it yet" and "tried and failed" here. RuneScape skills and RuneScape gods only survive because of large amounts of WP:ATA votes in deletion discussions (both on the keep and delete sides) create no consensus outcomes, which defaults to keep. Much of the game guide material also remains because of the large amount of effort it would take to remove it. In the example of RuneScape combat, some stuff is definitely worth keeping, and selecting all of that will take ages.

If about three other WP:VG members are willing to take the challenge and go and edit the RuneScape stuff in close cooperation, I would be willing to take the challenge as well. Gameguide TaskForce, anyone? User:Krator (t c) 12:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a comment on the RuneScape example specifically, as I haven't read it, but there is no reason that a lengthy, encyclopedic article about a video game cannot be spread over multiple pages in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. These cases are few and far between, though. Unfortunately, an over-long video game article typically indicates the presence of game guide material. Pagrashtak 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think all this ties back into the "List of Cars", articles on Goombas, and a bunch of assorted issues. We need something like a "Manual of style" specific to video games, or "Notability (video games)" which combines elements of fictional notability and general notability issues, some which are described by our project guideline page. (This would be compariable to WP:MOSFILMS for movies.) Such a page should include highly specific examples of what should and should not go in a VG game article and where such material should be relocated. This can be separate from the current VG-specific guideline as that's more about appropriate elements for a VG article, but to outline how far one could take summary style should also be outlined. --Masem 16:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
More instruction creep. I don't think we need anything more specific than WP:FICT regarding notability. For style, we already have Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines.
I'm always wary of "highly specific" statements, because there are too many people who like to wikilawyer to remove content. For example, the "highly specific" statements would probably ban "lists of cars", but there are several reasons given above where a list of cars could be acceptable in certain (limited) circumstances.
As for "summary style abuse", it's easy enough to fix: reduce it per WP:WEIGHT and {{merge}} it back into the main article. I don't see any need for more rules on "how far" to take it. Anomie 19:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not so much a guideline though something definitely less prescriptive but more descriptive of what is generally considered as appropriate material. There's some bits about this, but certainly not enough consensus agreed examples to make a clear case, and may be hard for a newer editor trying to figure out how far to take a game article to know where the line is. We should really identify articles that sit near the borderline to identify where the community agrees its appropriate to where they agree it falls under game guide materials. Featured articles help but there need to be more examples. --Masem 20:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Those Runescape examples once again nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape combat. Miremare 18:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My knowledge of WikiCode is somewhat rudimentary, but I do know what typically does not go in an Encyclopaedia. (I'm better at spotting irrelevant information and making content more concise than adding relevant information.) I'd be open to joining the aforementioned Task Force. :) I'd probably not be overly on such a task force though. :( Ong elvin 03:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This request is ridiculous. Take a look a what can actually be achieved: Wikipedia:Featured topics/Final Fantasy VIII. --Teggles 05:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why such a request is ridiculous. Each of the subarticles has notability in the gaming industry. Perhaps I should elaborate: my guideline request is more along the lines of stopping blatantly unencyclopaedic material from seeing daylight in Wikipedia; and that one-article suggestion was just the only thought I had in mind at the time. Even more specifically, I'm very much against game guide material in an encyclopaedia, and this happens to be the most common problem when it comes to video gaming articles. Anyway, I have an alternative that could work. It's really just an elaboration of "if it has no relevance to non-gamers, kill it," but I think it might be useful as a more realistic example that fanboy editors can use. Tell me what y'all think.

Your mum is an average mum when it comes to computers and/or games. A neophyte, a newb, regularly mixes up which one is the mouse, keyboard, and monitor, and after 10 years of practice still can't program the VCR. (Sadly, your dad is in the same position.) Moving the mouse is the limit of her computer skills, and even so she doesn't know what a cursor is. Now, pretend you want to teach your mum about some computer game, and how to play it. Anything you would tell her in her first hour of play (after bumbling through tutorials) would most likely find a place in the Wiki article. Anything after that first hour or so about how to play and game mechanics normally doesn't belong.

Again, this is to kill the material that outright has no place on any encyclopaedia. The links to all those subarticles, Teggles? As I said, they have notability within the gaming world, so I would agree that they deserve an article to themselves. Furthermore, they aren't game guides, which gives me little reason to kill them as they are separate articles. Hope that clarifies my goals. Ong elvin 10:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion is a little extreme. You wouldn't tell your mother about the development and critical reception of the game, but I think everyone here would agree that that is the sort of thing we need more of. You also wouldn't give her a summary of the entire game's plot, but I think most agree that a concise summary is needed for those games that have one. For Final Fantasy VI, you wouldn't talk about relics or equipping espers in the first hour because they aren't available at the beginning of the game (a novice player isn't too likely to even get past the first boss in 1 hour), but they are essential to the game mechanics. For Secret of Mana, you wouldn't even mention (except maybe in passing "later on we can both play together") that you get more than one playable character. Anomie 12:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
And furthermore, discussions at WP:SPOILER have pointed out that to provide a neutral point of view, a brief but complete plot summary or summarized details of gameplay needs to be included. We're not a gaming press, where "the first hour" descriptions would be better suited. --Masem 13:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There's a bigger problem with that example: it encourages editors to write to the gamer audience. Our articles are for the general reader, who may never touch the game (or any other game) in his life. Pagrashtak 21:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Ick, I know about those, but I didn't consider them in my example. x.x But yes, I know we need to write for a general reader. But I think an example of the general reader should nevertheless be added to the guideline so that we have a better outline of what goes here and what goes on GamingWikis. Ong elvin 01:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • So, I've come to the realisation that my request for a new guideline thus far was more of a request to clarify an existing guideline. With that in mind, I propose the following addition:

Articles on gaming topics must contain real-world context to be considered notable enough for their own article. Articles without such context should nearly always be moved to a dedicated gaming wiki.

I think this could be easier to tote around than "cruft" and WP:NOT#GUIDE. Think about it - sales figures, criticism/reception, development and such sections are definitely real-world. Those who have read some articles outside of Wikipedia's scope will realise that many such articles don't include such sections either. As an added bonus, adding such a clarification ties it more closely to the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. Ong elvin 06:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

On another note, I think we could use a few sections on how to do specific things in the guidelines. For example, some games use to have a couple of paragraphs dedicated to the game's Combat Triangle in some form or another, the ins and outs and so on. (RuneScape wasn't the only game to do so.) I would like to add a section to the guideline detailing cases such as these. In the Combat Triangle example, the guideline would say If the game involves some form of a Combat Triangle or rock-paper-scissors element, do not dedicate more than one sentence to it. Instead, just say "this game has a Rock Paper Scissors element to it" in a manner approprate to the article. Attributes should link to Attributes (role-playing games). And so on. Ong elvin 06:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to expand the section on what belongs in a gaming-wiki, specifically the Content that may be moved to gaming wikis. I'm thinking lists of attributes and what they do, descriptions of generic styles of combat found in most games (ie, melee, ranged, magic/psionic), lists of skills and what they do, and anything banal. (eg, "The Fishing skill must be used at a river or pond.) Ong elvin 06:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Following from this, it would be a good idea to give some more endorsement to transwikying articles to dedicated projects where they exist; such as moving Halo related articles to A sentence saying "information that would be of more use to a newbie learning the game than a person interested in the game's history doesn't belong" might be good. Actually, maybe that could go hand in hand with the existing "only has value to players" - information should read like a history of the game. Not sure on this one though. Ong elvin 06:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests

An interesting dilemma here...I tried to remove some of the blue links, and the edit was blocked by the mediawiki spam filter. Anyone else get this? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 01:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, it had a blacklisted url in there. Must have become blacklisted after it was added to the page. Miremare 02:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Could an administrator fix up something?

I'm trying to move Pokémon Diamond and Pearl (video games) back to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, per the mover allowing anyone to move it back if they object. I chose to [try to] move it back, as the one most well-known usage of the phrase is the video game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, now done. --Oscarthecat 06:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Avast! WP:FAC nom on Golden Sun

Could a good coupl' chaps look atGolden Sun? I nom'd it for FAC a while back, but have only gotten comments from three people. David Fuchs (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Supported, but with some suggestions for improvement. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 11:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Resident Evil viruses

I can't find the actual wikiproject page, if there even is one, so:

I'm cleaning up the viruses page, since it was a badly organized mish-mash of confusing and contradicting info, but the problem is that, well, I've never actually played the games. The most I've done is seen a flash movie about Code Veronica, and seen the scene with the first zombie in the original Resident Evil while at a friend's house. I would extremely appreciate some help from someone who knows the series, as while I'm sure I've done some good in cleaning up the article, I'm also certain that the chronology I've written isn't correct.

Thank you for your time, and any help you can give me.KrytenKoro 04:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I could also use help with sourcing, seeing as I have nearly no ability to provide them.KrytenKoro 04:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like cruft to me...--SeizureDog 04:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems like a bit of cruft to me as well. Game plot shouldn't be into this much detail on Wikipedia. I think an AFD and transwiki is needed. I would bet there is a Resident Evil wiki, but I don't have the link. Here is the article (if people want to take a look): Fictional Viruses in the Resident Evil Series. RobJ1981 04:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the link to Resident Evil Wikia: [3] --Mika1h 22:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Rival Turf

There's a mini edit war going that has been going on this article - perhaps a deletion or merger is in order? - Jtalledo

Not again? - X201 17:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the same edits are happening - someone reverts and then proceeds to vandalize some of the articles I've created. I'm sick and tired of dealing with this and I wouldn't mind if the article was deleted outright. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Gran Turismo 5 Prologue

Can someone help me keep on eye on this? A user keeps re-adding the cars list, which is listcruft. I've explained to him: the general consensus is to not list them, but he refuses to listen. RobJ1981 18:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a protection would be justified. --MrStalker talk 17:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Maxis task force

We should start a task force on the simulation company Maxis. It will include SimCity, The Sims, Spore and other games, biographies, and companies.

Support as nominatorJuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 23:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you plan to do beyond what WP:VG does? User:Krator (t c) 23:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Task force assessment

Does anyone know how exactly we would go about setting up the assessment bot for the individual task forces? JACOPLANE • 2007-09-27 08:29

TBH, I think task force specific assessment would be counter productive. Task forces are usually groups of editors with a similar interest editing similar articles. "Self-assessment" is much more difficult and less productive than assessment by a relative outsider. User:Krator (t c) 12:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking that we should remove the WP:VG assessment, just that when an article is within the scope of a certain task force that it would be placed in a category, so that task force members can easily see which articles are stubs/start class so can focus their energy on those articles. The actual assessment would still be done through the WP:VG project. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-27 13:50

List of Megami Tensei Monsters, Bosses, and Creatures

I came across this today, and I was wondering if anyone could help with it? I don't know the series very well. It certainly needs a better formatting. My choice would be: sort it by game. Perhaps a table could be used as well. RobJ1981 08:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly needs a better name in any case. --SeizureDog 08:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Astron Belt and Quarter Horse

I would like to argue that the passive nature of Quarter Horse, even in the realm of limited decision laser games, precludes it from being described as the first video laser game. Therefore, it should not be compared with Astron Belt or Dragon's Lair and usurp those games as being the first developed and commercially released laser games, respectively. The Astron Belt article should be edited to reflect that, I think. Also, if the existence of Quarter Horse is the reason that Dragon's Lair is first described on Wikipedia as "one" of the first video laser disc games, instead of the first commercially released video laser disc game, then the Dragon's Lair article should be edited to reflect a drop in Quarter Horse's claim to that title as well. With Quarter Horse, you merely place bets, and have no influence in the outcome of the races. It's really more a betting laser game, than an arcade video game and the even minimal player interactivity that that label implies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:RS, in case you didn't know. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Super Mario RPG lists

Currently, Super Mario RPG has three lists pertaining to it (List of characters in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, Smithy Gang, and List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars). Like with most single games, the lists just detail information that is better served summed up in the main article. The main problem is the assertion of notability through trivial sources and details. This problem mainly resides within the location list.

The development and reception sections are full of quotes from trivial reviews, trivial sources, and information that would be better placed in the main article if they need to be placed somewhere. Two other minor sections add just random details that add nothing to the article (languages) and reiterate information (metaphysics). Then there is just the list, which obviously needs to go. This version shows what cutting it down to "the basics leaves." If anyone can comment here, that would be appreciated. TTN 03:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Currently, Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars has two lists pertaining to it (List of characters in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, and List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars). User:TTN decided it would be best to merge the lists into the main article and split Smithy Gang into those articles. I recently merged Smithy Gang into the list of chatacters by removing the non-notable characters, and I have asserted that a cameo section in the list of characters is valid, per Wikipedia:Trivia sections and Wikipedia:Handling trivia that uses Alex Trebek#Cameos as a good example. I have suggested that we rename the articles per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves to something along the lines of Characters of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and World of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars or Mushroom Kingdom (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) just like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and World of Final Fantasy VI or Gaia (Final Fantasy VII). I believe if these articles are to evolve beyond a non-notable list, they should be renamed. For example, List of Final Fantasy VII locations was merged into Gaia (Final Fantasy VII), because a World article is notable, but a simple list of locations is not. That is why there are other secions of the article to make it a World article. It simply has not been renamed yet.
TTN believes the citations in the development and reception sections of the list of locations, books and magazines, are trivial sources. When I added that the 3D perspective of the game is reminicent of Equinox to the main article, TTN removed it since my souce was "the opinions of the Nintendo Power player's guide writers". Although it was actually Nintendo Power magazine, I do believe a magazine is a reliable source, and I gave a page from Next Generation Magazine which also said the same thing. In addition, I was surprized that TTN said that it was from the players guide, since he claims to own the players guide for the game. He has not verified this, since I asked him for citations in May, "Could you look in the back of the Player's Guide and tell me what “types” of … Magic? I forgot what they call it in the game … well, anyways, what types of Special Attack or whatever it is (actually, could you find out what it's called?) there are? I remember some vaguely when I owned the guide like “Fire”, “Jump”, “Electricity?”, etc. Could you provide a citation, like the page number with a quote in context?" TTN replied that he was going to "get to it" (User talk:TTN/Archive 5#List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars). TTN claims the player's guide is "at the bottom of a box that's behind at least five others in a cramped space". Seeing that TTN did not recognize that the page was not from the player's guide when I provided a scan of the page in question from Nintendo Power shocked me. However, I have continued to assume good faith by not questioning TTN's honesty.
Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change, I have offered five different reasonable, temporary compromises that might integrate my idea with TTN's.
  1. Go over the list of characters so we can delete non–notable characters
  2. Rename the articles by following the steps at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves.
  3. Cut down the geography section list of locations by cutting it into the regional maps the adventures use when traveling from one to another. I can get pictures and write the fair use rationals, and someone can cut down the text that has no citation and does not allude to other media.
  4. Write the concept and creation and reception sections for the list of characters
  5. Write the concept and creation section for the main article
TTN rejected my compromise because it still keeps the articles. I agreed I would consider a redirect, but Wikipedia:Article size does not allow that, since the list of locations is currently 82 KB long. Instead, I agreed to help cut down the geography section that is the bulk of the article, but TTN rejected that as well because TTN states, "I am not interested in working on the article in regards to improving it." and "get past this "having sources automatically means that this information is good" mentality." TTN states, "I don't think they have or will ever assert notability." I have replied with, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so if you don't think the articles will ever assert notability, we cannot yet know this, per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I don't like it.
Would you please take a look at Talk:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and give us your thoughts? Taric25 00:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please review Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares

I've recently done a major edit.Philcha 12:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You have way too much focus on gameplay. Since you list it as a 4X and turn-based strategy game, assume that the elements of those games already exist and focus on what is unique or expanded upon in the game. You don't need to go into detailed mechanics of how something works within the game, just that something is in the game. Also you should not right in the second person (that is, refering to the player as "you"); everything should be relative to "the player" and how "they" interact with the game.
Don't think the "user interface" section is necessary, the screenshots should be moved up into gameplay
You absolutely need a reception section, if the game has reviews on Metacritic. Ideally, you should have a development section, but this may be more difficult.
Remember, overall, focus on how the game impacts the real world, not on what happens within the game. --Masem 12:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Them references need retrieval dates. See some decent video game articles as examples. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Heroes 3: WOG

Having written the original WOG article wich got deleted by voting, I have to ask is there any point writing it again? Arsestar 14:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Heroes of Might and Magic III: In the Wake of Gods? It has an article. --Mika1h 16:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had written the first article about it for wikipedia, but it got deleted. So why there's another new being written when it was decided that wikipedia doesn't need one? Arsestar 17:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the article was written twice by (I presume) two different people under two different article titles (Heroes of Might and Magic 3½: In the Wake of Gods) and I'm fairly certain you're the first to notice. Nifboy 21:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Asking for advice re: edit war

An editor by the name of MagicalHopStep has been undoing my additions to the article, Wild Arms 5 with little or no justification, even when I asked for a discussion of the matter. (see the article's talk page.) What steps should be taken now? -Wilfredo Martinez 04:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is false. Said user made an addition that included some false and uneccessary information. I fixed the errors and shortened it. He is the one who undid my changes, and I undid this ONE TIME AND ONE TIME ONLY. When he asked for reasons on the talk page, I gave them, but he chose to ignore them and threaten me-this can all be seen on the talk page. He also chose to ignore the other two individuals who agreed with me, and said he was reporting me, even though I have done nothing wrong.MagicalHopStep 05:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

1) The information I provided on the game is correct as far as I know, and I asked you why you felt it was in error. You did not explain it, despite my asking several times. Just saying it's wrong doesn't cut it.

2) The information was not unnecessary. It gave background details to help explain what the game is about and how it differs from the other Wild Arms games, all of which are alternate versions of each other. It gave away no spoilers. It is in fact short when compared to the plot sections included in other videogames entries on Wikipedia. Yet you insisted on reducing it to the kind of blurb you would find on the back of the videogame box, if that. This is Wikipedia, providing facts is it whole point.

3) Warning someone that his behavior will be reported is not a threat. I just realized you were not going to discuss things with me fairly (and you still have not done so) so I brought the matter here. I have followed all the required Wikipedia steps, from announcing my intentions weeks ago in the talk page (why didn't you say anything then?) to bringing the discussion here now.

4) The other individuals did not gave any reasons either. "I feel it should be this way" is not a valid argument. And as you yourself pointed out, it is very suspicious that so many people commented on the matter within the same day.

But I'm glad you at least saw fit to try to defend your point here. Now please provide answers to my questions. -Wilfredo Martinez 14:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys, glad you're both keen to expand and improve the article. But if there's some disagreement over particular points, please just resolve the issue by citing sources, WP:CITE. No point trying to create an edit war, wikipedia's got enough of them already. --Oscarthecat 14:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Story sections should never really exceed 500 words. Games with plain plots (mostly FPS) should be shorter. The guideline for novels says 500 words, and that's when the plot is far more complex than any game. Any article in which it does so means the editors suck at being concise. As for the points... 1) Just being correct as far as you know is not sufficient. You must be able to cite your sources, either as a footnote or in the References section. Inclusion is on the basis of verifiability, not validity, and this is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. 2) Wrong, proving points is not the reason Wikipedia exists. "Proving points" would imply that Wikipedia exists to provide a one-sided view in debates, acting like a legal court. Regardless, Wikipedia exists to present encyclopaedic material in an encyclopaedic manner. Just because some random fact is true/useful doesn't make it encyclopaedic. My telephone number is true and useful to some people. Does that make it encyclopaedic? 3) No comment. 4) True, "I feel it should be this way" isn't a valid argument. Ong elvin 15:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at WP:NOVSTY and could not find the number 500 anywhere. Where is that statement coming from? Anomie 17:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Since MagicalHopStep STILL insists on not answering my questions, there is no point in arguing this further, so I will not do so anymore. (In any case, I have noticed that the page is now semi-protected, and an expansion for the plot section has been officially asked for.) I just wanted to call his unproper behaviour to public attention. -Wilfredo Martinez 22:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

On a somewhat related manner, another user, "TTN", keeps vandalizing the Wild ARMS 5 article. He's messing with a lot of sections and completely deleted over half the article. It took me a long time to get back all the stuff he got rid of, since he did not make all his changes in the same edit. I don't want to start an edit way, but if I don't keep undoing it, it's going to make things a lot harder when more people come along and make appropriate edits. Can a mod or someone in charge say something to him?MagicalHopStep 17:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The chances are that his edits were perfectly legitimate. What was removed probably had to go. He probably should have left a note on the talk page, but contact to find the exact reasons for the edits. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I already did all that. He deleted ALL of the character profiles, the trivia section, and just about the entire article. People have been working on all of that stuff for months, and he deleted it all without even bothering to try and discuss it first. He is trying to claim that video game articles should not have that stuff. but I've seen plenty, and I know that's not the case. It's information. And Wiki is an encyclopedia of information, isn't it? Please, someone step in and stop him. I don't want to get in trouble, but if his edits are left unreverted, it's going to become harder and harder to get back all the information that he's taken.MagicalHopStep 18:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
All of TTN's edits were valid, especially the one's that removed superfluous character information. The article in it's original form is full of cruft and it would have been removed by any one of the regulars on this project. It was just a case of who got to it first. TTN could have explained his/her edits better but apart from that I can't see anything wrong and the article is certainly nearer to the projects ideal for an article after TTN's edits. It can be traumatic having stuff removed from an article that you care about but if you'd come here before TTN's edits and asked for someone to check the article over you'd have been told by the others to remove the same stuff. - X201 18:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's completely bogus. I'm one of the editors of that article, and it was mostly my stuff that got deleted. I've seen lots of articles just like that. It's organized, it's informative, and it's how people prefer it. If he has a problem, he owes it to us who worked on it to discuss it first, instead of just dismissing all our hard work like nothing. 18:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I've really got to agree. I mean, character profiles are hardly "superfluous. Nearly all media articles contain them-some even have whole pages dedicated to their characters. It's necessary information.MagicalHopStep 18:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
If the characters are notable enough to have an article, then feel free to create a List of Wild Arms 5 characters in order to incorporate them. As for the rest of the stuff, it should be removed. Trivia should be incorporated into the article (WP:TRIVIA), and the rest of the removed information is extraneous game guide details that should be condensed into a gameplay section. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
He is trying to claim that video game articles should not have that stuff. but I've seen plenty -- for the record, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for the character sections, only the main ones who play a very important part in the story where included. And the trivia was part of the article, was it not?O_oMagicalHopStep 19:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII is a featured article, compare it's characters section to the one in Wild Arms 5. The Final Fantasy one is all written in text, it has just enough detail to explain the character with out stepping into geekdom and it even has twenty references in the character section alone. - X201 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really seeing your point. The two are not comparable. Also, myself and the others against the deletions attempted to make a compromise by letting them remove a majority of the sections, but leaving the character and plot sections, but they were unwilling.MagicalHopStep 19:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
"The two are not comparable." That's the point I'm making. One of the articles obeys the requirements that are needed for a properly written article, the other does not. - X201 21:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Basically, if you're going to compare Wild Arms 5 to another game article, compare it with an article that is actually considered to be well written - i.e. an FA or GA rated article. --Scottie_theNerd 05:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I did. Which bit of "Final Fantasy VII is a featured article, compare it's characters section to the one in Wild Arms 5" wasn't clear? - X201 08:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Project Exile

I'm in a bit of a dispute with someone over a controversy section, and would like a second (and third/fourth/fifth/etc.) opinion on the matter. See, one user wants this section there and cites forum posters as his source, while I say that random forum posters are not reliable, and you cannot cite a forum. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, link? Or go to WP:3O. User:Krator (t c) 23:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Project Exile (game) - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep, the list is like a blurb from the game box or an ad - these things should be written about properly rather than listed. And nuke the "controversy" section as completely non-notable - if these accusations had been made in the press or by a reliable website then it would be worth including, but a forum? Pft. Miremare 00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that I want to avoid getting into an edit war, and the other user does not want to back down. A discussion is occurring right now at the user's talk page - [4] - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The controversy section is pointless forum mudslinging. Anyone who actually cares about tarnishing this publisher-less game, or "protecting" square, are idiots. The game is pretty non-notable and could do with AFD. This looks like homebrew rubbish. - hahnchen 00:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
While the creator is seeking a publisher, it really isn't notable until it comes out yet, so I wouldn't oppose an AfD. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Over a year and still seeking a publihser? Please. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, kthx. hbdragon88 04:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Exile (game)‎. hbdragon88 00:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Video games/Archive 31".